It is strange to be okay with saying Paul railed in hate against heterosexuals having gay sex or adults abusing children of the same sex or temple gay sex in Romans 1.  Hate is hate.  It is a strange argument that say the text is right and the hate is right as long as it does not mean gays in a loving relationship.  Paul knew that gays were hated so why was he not clearer?  Because he simply meant that same sex sex is wrong.  So he was clearer.

Jesus used a text from Genesis to say that God set up the plan for man and woman to unite in marriage for their bodies were designed male and female.  It says nothing about reproduction which is significant.  The rule applies even if the couple are sterile.  It calls the union one flesh meaning the sex act.  Paul uses the same thinking and has the same text in the back of his mind in Romans 1.  He is only developing what Jesus said.

If Jesus was going to preach a gospel that makes no demands that would upset a secularist or atheist then how could he say that people who take him seriously with either love him or hate him?  In John he says the world hated him.

There is more to worry about than just texts that mention homosexuality - the whole feel of the Bible is anti-gay sex.  Even Leviticus has a go at condemning the act of sex not the gay men engaging in it. But it does say the sin is so bad that it forces the community to destroy them.

Paul seemed to expect people to try and twist his words. Roman men did sleep with slave boys. He never spoke of man with male slave but man with man.  He in fact never clearly condemned slavery.  Trying to imagine that he believed people were equal and that means he condemned slavery ignores the fact that people are inconsistent and you need a clear, "slavery is forbidden and wrong" He condemned sex between women which was not really part of the culture to underline that same sex sex is wrong.



No Copyright